I think, personally, that you are over rating Kubrick, like so many others have done.
Perhaps indulging in an apophenia deconstructionist approach to his pretentious randomness and calling it genius.
Kubrick was incapable of originality so corrupted the creative works of others and called it adaptation.
He was self-indulgent, a bully, a leach, a scandalmonger and a prolific self-publicist. Very little else, but in those areas he was very efficient in creating the myth of "Kubrick the artist" the master of passing off incompetence as indecipherable metaphor
This is what people "don't get"

@LenHazell53 well that's a personal attack on him personally. The post wasn't about Kubrick the man, but about the film Clockwork Orange looking back almost 50 years. I stand by my opinion. It's a deeply disturbing movie, but for reasons that people don't always understand. Kubrick transcended the source material to create something masterful though disturbing. Though the movie has aged -- what looked futuristic in the early 1970s, now looks like 60s retro chic -- but the moral ambiguity of the film remains, and it takes its place in cinematic history. That's all I have to say.

@altschmerz Malcolm McDowell has said Kubrick was an extraordinary Director to work with. It all comes down to personalities. In any case it's irrelevant. The film stands on its merits, not the character of the Director. In a similar way I think many of Roman Polanski's films are extraordinary, but as for the man I have the lowest opinion.

@altschmerz Paths of Glory I will go along with being a good film, but that was in 1957, before Kubrick started thinking he was "Kubrick" and allowed seasoned professionals like Kirk Douglas to show him how to make a film.
2001 is the product of two enormous narcissist egos (Kubrick and Clarke) and a LOT of money indulging in an orgy of mutual admiration and back patting.
Stragelove is not a Kubrick Film it is a Peter Sellers film and like all Sellers helmed films is a mess, an amusing mess, but a mess none the less. Dr. Strangelove is what happens when you give Peter Sellers free reign to do as he pleased and is no better than "Soft Beds and Hard battles" or "The fiendish Plot of Dr. Fumanchu" or any other of the many films Sellers went multi role egomaniacal on, because the British film industry really believed he could do no wrong.
Films like "After the Fox" and "Battle of the sexes" and his one good multi role film "The Mouse that Roared" show what Sellers could do with a strong director who would take none of his shit and got great performances out of him, Kubrick unfortunately could not, we can thank the studio gods that Kubrick did not give sellers his head and allow him to play 'Buck' Turgidson and Major 'King' Kong as well, because Sellers is on record as being furious when those parts were taken away from him.

Interestingly the most acclaimed Kubrick film Spartacus, is also the most reviled as being the most Un-Kubrick by his fans. This is not surprising Kirk Douglas insisted on Kubrick as director, because he had been so pliable on Paths of Glory and basically allowed Douglas to direct the film by proxy, which he did again on Spartacus (Compare both films to Posse 1975 and you can see Douglas the director stamped all over them.
Kubrick did not have final cut on Spartacus but Douglas did.

@altschmerz, @David1955
Malcolm McDowell has said (insert name director here) was an extraordinary Director to work with.
McDowell is a fine actor, but he will work for anyone who will pay him, Lyndsey Anderson, Rob Zombie, Trey Parker and Matt Stone and has even played himself on episodes of Scooby Doo.
He is famously amiable and cooperative, would rarely say a bad word against anyone, which is why he is never out of work.

@altschmerz No it was supressed because Kubrick wanted to add to his own mythos and a forbidden film in the Kubrick canon was too juicy a morsel not to include.